<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1939 (9) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276515</link>
    <description>Account entries for stamp duty, repairs and ceremonial expenses did not by themselves prove that a house bought in the mother&#039;s name was benami for the judgment-debtor, especially where he had attained majority and the estate was also indebted to her; the finding that the property did not belong to him was upheld. Certified copies of income-tax returns were also held inadmissible, because returns are protected by statutory confidentiality and are not public documents merely because certified copies exist. The appeal therefore failed on both the title and evidence issues, and the decree in favour of the claim-holder remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 1939 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2018 11:36:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=541622" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1939 (9) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276515</link>
      <description>Account entries for stamp duty, repairs and ceremonial expenses did not by themselves prove that a house bought in the mother&#039;s name was benami for the judgment-debtor, especially where he had attained majority and the estate was also indebted to her; the finding that the property did not belong to him was upheld. Certified copies of income-tax returns were also held inadmissible, because returns are protected by statutory confidentiality and are not public documents merely because certified copies exist. The appeal therefore failed on both the title and evidence issues, and the decree in favour of the claim-holder remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 1939 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276515</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>